- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8468 WP No.3279/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.3279/2026 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: M/S. MALNAD ASSOCIATES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRESS, SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OFFICE AT GROUND FLOOR, NO.1, JAIN TEMPLE ROAD, KADUR, CHIKKAMAGALURU, KARNATAKA - 577 548. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.ASHOKA T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES, AROGYA SOUDHA, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 023. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8468 WP No.3279/2026 3. THE DISTRICT SURGEON AND SUPERINTENDENT WENLOCK DISTRICT HOSPITAL, HAMPANAKATTA, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 57 5001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.01.2026 (NO.AKUKA 336 CGM 2025) ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. VIDE ANNEXURE-D. 2) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO CONTINUE SERVICES UNTIL 31.03.2026 AS PER THE VALID EXTENSION ORDER. 3) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO INVITE FRESH TENDERS FOR FUTURE ALLOTMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KTPP ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8468 WP No.3279/2026 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has successfully participated in the tender floated by third respondent to avail the petitioner's services for supply of diet to inpatients in the hospital. The petitioner's Contract is valid till 31.03.2026. The petitioner's grievance is with the first respondent's decision vide Order dated 21.01.2026 to assign the Contract to another entity during the contractual period and the petitioner also makes out a grievance against the decision to award the contract to this third party entity invoking the provisions of Section 4(g) of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999. Mr. Ashok T, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. Saritha Kulkarni, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, are heard. The respondents cannot dispute that the petitioner has a valid contract until 31.03.2026 and that the petitioner continues to supply diet to the inpatients - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8468 WP No.3279/2026 in the hospital. The question is could the third respondent have issued this Work Order to another entity when the petitioner's contract subsisted without any room for complaint or action based on certain complaint. The answer is obvious and the third respondent could not have issued Work Order during the contractual period. However, the next question is should this Court interfere with the order dated 21.01.2026 only on this ground. This Court is not persuaded because the petitioner's interest could be protected without jettisoning the order by calling upon the third respondent to defer the implementation of the order until 31.03.2026. The petition therefore stands disposed of according. RB Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE